I thought I was the first scammer staff member.

Link?

He still maintains that AurumXChange is holding those funds. You can ask them what they did with the money.

I have been accused of many things, but not having a sense of humor is definitely a first.

EDIT: Now that you mention it, more people push poo than Bytecoin.

More evidence that "ByteCoin" is promoted only by shills and sockpuppets in an attempt to artificially stimulate the pump-and-dump. Sorry, but if it doesn't grow organically (just like those horrid forced "Bitcoin user not affected" memes), I'm not interested.

This is just like my Market Ads section in Bitcoin Magazine. I don't know why Mihai ditched them when I left, but it appears there is a market for it as a result! Good luck mate!

You're forgetting that bitcoin, the internet, and the communities of con-artists at large are full of sociopaths. Why would they care about getting caught in a lie when they think they're above the truth? Pirate made himself believe everything he said.

As someone who hates shit logos (and absolutely loves it when more talent comes to bitcoin), I'm bumping here to keep an eye on you!  

Edit: tried out the logo service, was provided with numerous concepts but eventually settled on one I could relate to, was then provided with more versions of said design and was able to narrow things down simply and easily.

Overall I'm happy with the provided logo and would recommend to anyone looking for simple, quick and cheap vector style logos. Would not recommend if you're going for a complicated logo with deep symbolism (you should stop being a cheapass and track down David Airey instead).

Will use again!

Speaking of mistakes, "Biggest mistakes you've made with bitcoin"  

I disagree, at least with this:


When a company spends money on advertisements, (semi-)working hardware, etc, you can easily argue that they were intending to produce. It would be very hard for a judge to rule that BFL was *intending* to defraud people in an industry where legitimate companies fail constantly due to financial restraints and hardware failure.

That said, they'd lose any case in regards to honesty in advertising and could be sued for that alone. In the end, they'd probably lose the same way Bruce Wagner lost for his mortgage venture. Bottom line: Taking insanely large amounts of money and not providing a single product.

Ordinarily I'd agree with the sentiment, as my company too was very late producing something (Bitcoin Magazine) and it was a stressful time bringing it to market despite very real unforeseen challanges. However, what you're basically doing is discounting MyBitcoin.com as a "mistake". And Pirateat40 for that matter. Were's the *proof* that they intended to run with the money?

I'm one for "innocent until proven guilty", so let's look at the facts:

• A company takes money for a product that they say they will give by a certain time
• They fail to provide that product by that time

That's guilty in and of itself, but most people will give more time-- so we do! Another month. Then another. Then another. How much guilt do you need to call someone guilty of lying? And if the lie is related to a promise of service/product after receiving payments, how many decades does it take to know for sure they scammed you?

This isn't a community "misunderstanding", nor is it an unfair "guilty until proven innocent" assessment. It's a very natural reaction to a company who has never provided a product people paid for. When they provide it, just as it is in court, the evidence will set them free (for the most part), but until then you seem to be defending something you admit is wrong. Why?

No one is saying they can't make spiffy cases (I love their cases!), but you can't mine bitcoins with fans alone.

That sounded like Furries on SecondLife for a second.


Where are your citizenship papers for bitcoinland, sir? Please show them immediately. You know, the ones with your private keys on them. 

No, you live in the USA, but you hold stake in "bitcoinland" by holding bitcoins. Holding a stake in this conceptual kingdom is akin to holding property on the moon though. Anything can happen and those moon dollars can become pretty worthless if there are not rockets to support travel to and from.

You're predicting an outcome that isn't true for everyone (some people might win after 10 bets placed with only 10 shareholders, making them all large winners), but you're also predicting it based on a surplus of funds, assuming that people could keep betting on their own with their own money (something this pool would be designed to help with). Some people only have 0.01 BTC for example and cannot continue betting-- wouldn't allowing them to pool-bet be a better solution if they are already aware of the risks? Wouldn't the benefit in this case be that they are able to increase their probability of winning something over nothing based on the amount of bets?

Also, why didn't you answer your PM? (It wasn't about the topic of this thread btw)

Difference: We don't live in Bitcoin, it's not a country, and if it were it'd be akin to the Island of Nauru in that they have no exports and there is nothing to buy.

I think I might have not been clear enough in my OP.

I am talking about a situation where, similar to mining pools, people pool their resources (in this case bitcoins instead of mining hardware) to achieve the same goal (getting a jackpot). In other words, there is an address for them to send bitcoins to, it records their address as a "shareholder", and records the amount sent divisible by 0.01 BTC as "shares". Then it proceeds to bet with those shares. If it wins *ever*, all "shareholders" in that iteration will get the amount sent to them in proportion to how many shares they own and how many shares there are total. After that, it could either keep the same shareholders on board or wipe the slate clean each jackpot.

If it took 1000 people each putting in 1 BTC to get 640 BTC, then they'd get less than 1 BTC back obviously, but that might not happen. The point of this would be to allow more people more chances of winning *something* and not depleting their wallets in the process. It probably doesn't change the probabilities of hitting a jackpot *at all*, but it does actually change the probabilities of a single person winning part of it.

TL;DR? Crowdfunded gambling.

And ridiculously rewarding for a lucky few. Can you guys check out this thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=171803) and shoot it down? I'm having trouble seeing clearly if it'd be a good idea or a bad one to be honest.

Mining pools do it. They spread the risk of mining across multiple individuals and their hardware and share the rewards.

Why not a pool of people who deposit bitcoins for betting on SatoshiDice where the shares are determined by how many multiples of 0.01 BTC are deposited, and if let's say a jackpot of 640 BTC is won, it would be split across those shareholders?

So someone would be paying $400 for a month, then register it again for $26? Why wouldn't they just wait a month and save $374?